All posts tagged scotus

As we absorb the latest blockbuster ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, it’s worth noting some of the more interesting words used – or not used – by the justices. Hat tip to the “Control F” command on Law Blog’s keyboard.

The following words did not appear in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion nullifying the Defense of Marriage Act: Gay; Gays; Lesbian; Love

Separately, here are some unusual words used by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion:

“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” said Governor Brown.

The effect of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is that the 2010 federal district court’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is left intact and the law cannot be enforced.

In response, the Governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to advise county officials today that the district court’s injunction against. . . . . . Read More »

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority armswell every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.

-Justice Antonin Scalia

The Supreme Court was silent Wednesday on whether state bans on gay marriage are permissible under the U.S. Constitution. But the 5-4 majority, in knocking down a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples, did indeed give proponents of gay marriage a lot to work with, as Justice Antonin Scalia notes in his dissent.

You can expect to see the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, pop up often in legal challenges to gay marriage bans in the states.

But proponents don’t even need to read his opinion. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, does the work for them, with some clever editing. . . . . Read More »

As he described how the federal law intruded on traditional state domain over marriage, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer scanned the room. Justice Antonin Scalia removed his glasses, rubbed his eyes, and shifted uncomfortably. Justice Samuel Alito, who earlier this week took criticism in. . . . . Read More »

The Supreme Court avoided a ruling on the merits of the case involving California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage. It said both the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. That means a federal district court’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 stands, which could clear the way for same-sex marriage to resume in California.

Bloomberg

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Here are highlights from the 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justice Anthony Kennedy leading the dissenters.

Chief Justice John Roberts:

Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or “controversy.” As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every Read More »

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court’s majority said the Defense of Marriage Act “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.” Here are highlights from the dissenting opinions:

Chief Justice John Roberts:

Interests in uniformity and stability amply justified Congress’s decision to retain the definition of marriage that, at that point, had been adopted by every State in our Nation, and every nation in the world. The majority sees a more sinister motive. . . .

I think the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism. . . .

Justice Antonin Scalia:

This case is about…the power of our people to govern themselves . . . Read More »

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples. Here are the highlights from the court’s 5-4 decision announced by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

[If] the Executive’s agreement with a plaintiff that a law is unconstitutional is enough to preclude judicial review, then the Supreme Court’s primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law that has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff who has brought a justiciable legal claim would become only secondary to the President’s. . . . .

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of states anctioned marriages and make them unequal. . . The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. . . .

By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the. . . . . Read More »

Attorney General Eric Holder expresses disappointment in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the Alabama voting rights case, Shelby County v. Holder, Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at the Justice Department in Washington.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a linchpin of congressional activity during the civil rights era designed to rid the nation of slavery’s lingering effects.

In a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court struck down Section 4 of the act, which contains a decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures. Under Section 5 of the law, those areas must “pre-clear” voting changes with officials in Washington.

For more on the ruling and what it means, Law Blog checked in with Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles and an expert on voting rights and redistricting.

Here’s an edited transcript of our conversation.

Q: Did it surprise you that the court focused on Section 4 — the criteria used to determine whether a state or jurisdiction should be covered at all — and not Section 5, the subject of all the chatter prior to the ruling?

A: No. Section 4 is really what the fight is about, and has always been what the fight is about. When people refer to Section 5, they’re often just using it as a proxy for the entire preclearance regime. Section 4 is an extremely significant part of this regime, and if you take it away, the entire thing really falls apart.

That said, Justice [Clarence] Thomas said he wasn’t clear about Section 5, either, and that he’d prefer to see that part struck down as well. But he was the only one.

Q: Couldn’t Congress now just go update Section 4 to include criteria better suited to root out pernicious discrimination?

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.